s32170 (Rod Jackson) writes:

>Chris Ho-Stuart <> writes:
>>Great. The scientific issues are really off-topic here. A number of

>>people propose scientific objections to evolution; but I propose to

>>ignore such criticism for the moment.
>>The question is — are there other theological reasons for questioning

>>evolution? More significantly given the above extract — are there

>>theological reasons for questioning geology, and its conclusions

>>concerning the great age of the Earth and the absence of any global

>>flood?
>Ok. God says he’s going to destroy the world by a flood. But sme people

>take the word world to mean a local region not the entire earth (like the

>Roman world). But why would God get Noah to build an ark that took 100s of

>years and miraculously get all the animals on it when they could have just

>walked out of reach of the flood. The bible also states the waters covered

>the highest mountains (of the day). God has decreed that this world will

>be destroyed by fire like Noah’s world was destroyed by water – but it

>also speaks of the elements dissapearing (ie. total destruction).

The precise wording is that “all the mountains under heaven” (or some phrase like that, depending on your translation) would be covered. Creationists take this to mean what it would mean in the 20th century. If they are to be consistent, then when “devout men from every nation under heaven” were gathered in Jerusalem on the feast of Pentecost there were devout Jewish Aborigines from Australia, devout Jewish Eskimos, devout Jewish Tierra del Fuegans, devout Jewish … And since Paul wrote in Colossians that “the Gospel has been preached to every creature under heaven” why are we still engaging in missionary work? They’ve all heard the Gospel!

Or could it be that the phrase “under heaven” is not to be understood in the modern sense of “world-wide” ?

[rest deleted]

>RAZA 1998

Ken Smith

Related Reading: